Choosing wisely first line immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): what to add and what to leave out.

Immunotherapy has dramatically changed the therapeutic scenario in treatment naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While single agent pembrolizumab has become the standard therapy in patients with PD-L1 expression on tumor cells ≥ 50%, the combination of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy has emerged as an effective first line treatment regardless of PD-L1 expression both in squamous and non-squamous NSCLC without oncogenic drivers. Furthermore, double immune checkpoint inhibition has shown promising results in treatment naïve patients with high tumor mutational burden (TMB). Of note, the presence of both negative PD-L1 expression and low TMB may identify a subgroup of patients who has little benefit from immunotherapy combinations and for whom the best treatment option may still be platinum-based chemotherapy. To date, first-line single agent immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated limited activity in EGFR mutated NSCLC and the combination of immunotherapy and targeted agents has raised safety concerns in both EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC patients. Finally, in EGFR mutated or ALK rearranged NSCLC, atezolizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab is emerging as a potential treatment option upon progression to first line tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

A prospective observational study to evaluate G-CSF usage in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in Italian clinical oncology practice.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe dose-limiting side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Clinical practice guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with an overall ≥ 20 % risk of FN. AIOM Italian guidelines recommend starting G-CSF within 24-72 h after chemotherapy; for daily G-CSF, administration should continue until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 1 × 10(9)/L post-nadir and should not be terminated after ANC increase in the early days of administration. The aim of this study was to assess guideline adherence in oncology practice in Italy. In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients were enrolled at the first G-CSF use in any cycle and were followed for two subsequent cycles (or until the end of chemotherapy if less than two additional cycles). Primary objective was to explore G-CSF use in Italian clinical practice; therefore, data were collected on the G-CSF type, timing of administration, and number of doses. 512 eligible patients were enrolled (median age, 62). The most common tumor types were breast (36 %), lung (18 %), and colorectal (13 %). A total of 1,164 G-CSF cycles (daily G-CSF, 718; pegfilgrastim, 446) were observed. Daily G-CSF was administered later than 72 h after chemotherapy in 42 % of cycles, and the median [range] number of doses was four [1, 10]. Pegfilgrastim was administered later than 72 h in 8 % of cycles. G-CSF prophylaxis in Italy is frequently administered in a manner which is not supported by evidence-based guidelines. As this practice may lead to poor outcomes, educational initiatives are recommended.

Targeted therapy-induced diarrhea: A review of the literature.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: Revision of the literature on targeted therapy-induced diarrhea (TT-ID). PRINCIPAL RESULTS: TT-ID is frequent; the mechanisms are mainly secretive, followed by ischemic or autoimmune ones. The duration of TT-ID is protracted over time. Its intensity is of grade G1-G3 but may be fatal in patients with diffuse colitis or on ipilimumab. However, no specific guidelines are available on management of different grades of TT-ID. Preventive measures with antibiotics, probiotics or activated charcoal should be further investigated. Loperamide is the first choice drug followed by octreotide. The role of corticosteroids is controversial. CONCLUSION: Early assessment and management of TT-ID is essential to prevent the worsening of this side-effect, patients' hospitalization and dose reduction or oncological treatment discontinuation. Future research is needed to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms of TT-ID and it should also be investigated whether a specific pharmacological and/or non pharmachological approach is indicated.

Overall survival for sorafenib plus interleukin-2 compared with sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): final results of the ROSORC trial.

BACKGROUND: The ROSORC trial, a randomised, phase II trial comparing sorafenib plus interleukin (IL-2) versus sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) failed to demonstrate differences in progression-free survival (PFS). Updated overall survival (OS) results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 128 patients were randomised to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily plus subcutaneous IL-2 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 weeks every 8 weeks (arm A) or sorafenib alone (arm B). OS was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the two-sided log-rank test. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 58 months (interquartile range: 28-63 months), the median OS was 38 and 33 months in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.667). The 5-year OS was 26.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-43.5) and 23.1% (95% CI 13.2-40.5) for the combination- and single-agent arm, respectively. Most of the patients who were refractory to first-line treatment were subsequently treated with different targeted agents; they had a median survival greater than expected. CONCLUSIONS: This outcome suggests a synergistic effect of the subsequent therapies following sorafenib failure. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00609401.

Phase II study of pemetrexed and carboplatin plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this open label phase II study (NCT00407459) was to assess the activity of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with previously untreated, unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). METHODS: Eligible patients received pemetrexed 500 mg m(-2), carboplatin area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) 5 mg ml(-1) per minute and bevacizumab 15 mg kg(-1), administered intravenously every 21 days for six cycles, followed by maintenance bevacizumab. The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). A 50% improvement in median PFS in comparison with standard pemetrexed/platinum combinations (from 6 to 9 months) was postulated. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were evaluable for analysis. A partial response was achieved in 26 cases (34.2%, 95% CI 23.7-46.0%). Forty-four (57.9%, 95% CI 46.0-69.1%) had stable disease. Median PFS and overall survival were 6.9 and 15.3 months, respectively. Haematological and non-haematological toxicities were generally mild; however, some severe adverse events were reported, including grade 3-4 fatigue in 8% and bowel perforation in 4% of patients. Three toxic deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: The primary end point of the trial was not reached. However, due to the limitation of a non-randomised phase II design, further data are needed before drawing any definite conclusion on the role of bevacizumab in MPM.

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33 weeks with sorafenib plus IL-2, and 30 weeks with sorafenib alone (P=0.109). For patients receiving the initial higher dose of IL-2, median PFS was 43 weeks vs 31 weeks for those receiving the lower dose. The most common adverse events were asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhoea. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported for 38 and 25% of patients receiving combination and single-agent treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib and IL-2 did not demonstrate improved efficacy vs sorafenib alone. Improvements in PFS appeared greater in patients receiving higher-dose IL-2.

Uracil/ftorafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of randomised phase II study.

This randomised phase II study evaluates the safety and efficacy profile of uracil/tegafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX). One hundred and forty-three patients with measurable, non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomised in a multicentre study to receive TEGAFIRI (UFT 250 mg m(-2) day days 1-14, LV 90 mg day days 1-14, irinotecan 240 mg m(-2) day 1; q21) or TEGAFOX (UFT 250 mg m(-2) day days 1-14, LV 90 mg day days 1-14, oxaliplatin 120 mg m(-2) day 1; q21). Among 143 randomised patients, 141 were analysed (68 received TEGAFIRI and 73 TEGAFOX). The main characteristics of the two arms were well balanced. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (13% of cases with TEGAFIRI; 1% in the TEGAFOX group). Diarrhoea was prevalent in the TEGAFIRI arm (16%) vs TEGAFOX (4%). Six complete remission (CR) and 19 partial remission (PR) were recorded in the TEGAFIRI arm (odds ratio (OR): 41.7; 95% confidence limit (CL), 29.1-55.1%), and six CR and 22 PR were recorded in the TEGAFOX group, (OR: 38.9; 95% CL, 27.6-51.1). At a median time follow-up of 17 months (intequartile (IQ) range 12-23), a median survival probability of 20 and 19 months was obtained in the TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX groups, respectively. Median time to progression was 8 months for both groups. TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX are both effective and tolerable first-line therapies in MCRC patients. The employment of UFT/LV given in doublet combination is interesting and the presented data appear comparable to equivalent infusion regimens described in the literature. The safety profile of the two combinations also allows an evaluation with other biological agents such as monoclonal antibodies.

Randomized phase II three-arm trial with three platinum-based doublets in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. An Italian Trials in Medical Oncology study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not tolerate cisplatin-based regimens because of its nonhemathological toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the response rate safety of new platinum analogue regimens, randomizing 147 patients with nonoperable IIIB/IV NSCLC to (i) carboplatin (area under the curve = 5 mg min/ml) on day 1 plus gemcitabine (GEM) (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for six cycles; (ii) same regimen for three cycles followed by docetaxel (Taxotere) (40 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 plus GEM (1250 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for three cycles; (iii) oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2)) on day 1 plus GEM (1250 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for six cycles. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat objective response rates were 25%, 25% and 30.6% in arms A, B and C, respectively. Median survival was 11.9, 9.2 and 11.3 months in arms A, B and C, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia/anemia occurred in 29%/12.5%, 10%/16.5% and 8%/6% of arms A, B and C, respectively; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 20.5%, 16.5% and 6%; grade 1/2 neurological toxicity in 43% of arm C. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin/GEM (arm C) had similar activity to carboplatin/GEM (arm A), but milder hematological toxicity and may be worth testing in a phase III study against carboplatin/GEM in patients not suitable for cisplatin. The sequential regimen gave no additional benefit.

Osteoprotegerin and osteopontin serum values in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients treated with anastrozole.

Osteoprotegerin (OPG) is a potent antiresorptive molecule that binds NF-kappaB ligand, the final effector for osteoclastogenesis. OPG production is regulated by a number of cytokines and hormones. Osteopontin (OPN) is a secreted adhesive glycoprotein involved in tumour angiogenesis, and also a non-collagenous protein involved in bone turnover. OPN serum value is associated with tumour burden and survival in advanced breast cancer patients. The short-term effects of anastrozole on OPG and OPN serum values, and the usefulness of these analytes during follow-up were studied in 34 consecutive advanced breast cancer patients receiving anastrozole 1 mg/day. Blood samples were taken before treatment and at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. OPG and OPN values were measured by ELISA. The results were analysed for all patients, and also separately for patients with (group A, 22 patients) and without (group B, 12 patients) bone metastasis. Whether the survival of all patients was related to their OPN serum values was also tested by placing patients into three groups (terciles) according to their baseline OPN values. No significant changes in OPG and OPN values were observed in the complete patient group. There was no difference in baseline OPG and OPN serum values between patients in groups A and B. In group A, a significant percentage increase in both OPG and OPN values from baseline was detected during treatment. No significant changes were reported for group B patients. Furthermore, in group A, a significant increase in both analytes was evident only for patients with progressive disease (PD). The Kaplan-Meier adjusted survival estimates for patients grouped according to tercile OPN values differed significantly (P = 0.001, log rank test). In conclusion, in the short term, anastrozole does not seem to affect OPG and OPN serum values in patients without bone disease. OPG and OPN appear to be useful predictors of the outcome of skeletal disease and elevated OPN values may be associated with short survival in advanced breast cancer patients.

Preclinical and clinical evaluation of four gemcitabine plus carboplatin schedules as front-line treatment for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To explore the activity and tolerability of gemcitabine (GEM) and carboplatin (CBDCA) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) we tested four administration sequences on H460 NSCLC cells, and at the same time performed a randomized phase II trial using analogous schedules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GEM was given first in two in vitro sequences, and CBDCA first in the other two; interaction was quantified calculating a combination index. Eighty-eight chemotherapy-naïve, stage IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive either: GEM (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 and CBDCA (AUC 5 mg.min/ml) on day 1, 4 h before GEM (arm A); same as arm A except CBDCA given 4 h after GEM (arm B); GEM on days 1 and 8 and CBDCA on day 2 (arm C); GEM on days 2 and 9 and CBDCA on day 1 (arm D). Courses were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: In the preclinical study, CBDCA given before GEM produced a synergistic cytotoxic effect. Two complete and 29 partial responses occurred in 86 of 88 treated patients (intention-to-treat analysis 35%; 95% confidence interval 25.5% to 46.8%). One- and 2-year survivals were 44% and 11%, respectively. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 11%; grade 3/4 neutropenia in 17%; and non-hematological toxicity was insignificant. Median survival was 11 months (range 7-18+), but better in patients receiving CBDCA first (arms A and D) (13 versus 9 months) than in patients receiving GEM first (arms B and C). The response was greater (50% versus 31%) in arm A than in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS: The CBDCA/GEM combination is safe and active against stage IV NSCLC. Our preclinical and clinical findings suggest that administration of CBDCA before GEM gives the better outcome.

Biological activity of anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: effects on estrogens and bone metabolism.

BACKGROUND: To study the short-term biological effect of anastrozole on serum estrogens, androgens, 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17OH-PGR), gonadotrophins, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and bone metabolism markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with advanced breast cancer received anastrozole 1 mg/day. Blood samples were taken before commencement of treatment and at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks during treatment to measure serum levels of estrogens (E(1), E(2) and E(1)-S), androgens [androstenedione (Delta(4)), dihydrotestosterone (DHT), testosterone (TST), free TST, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S)], 17OH-PGR, SHBG and gonadotrophins. As an indicator of bone resorption, we measured serum levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP) and the cross-linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx), and for osteoblastic activity, intact osteocalcin (BGP) and bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP). RESULTS: After 2 weeks E(1 )and E(1)-S levels decreased on average by 56% (range 23.1-88.8%) and 75.8% (range 52.4-87.2%), respectively; E(2) decreased on average by 62% (range 31.4-89.6%). No significant changes were detected in levels of androgens or 17OH-PGR. There was a significant increase in gonadotrophins over time (P = 0.0001 for both luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone), and a significant decrease in SHBG (P = 0.0001). A progressive significant increase in bone metabolism serum markers was detected in all patients: BAP, P = 0.039; BGP, P = 0.016; ICTP, P = 0.0021; and NTx, P = 0.0013. In particular, patients with bone metastases had a statistically significant increase of bone resorption markers (ICTP, P = 0.0019; NTx, P = 0.025) and borderline for bone formation markers. In patients without bone disease, BAP, BGP and ICTP remained unchanged, whereas serum NTx significantly increased (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Anastrozole is a selective aromatase inhibitor as it does not modify serum levels of androgens and 17OH-PGR. In our experience no relationship was found in the short-term period between serum estrogen suppression and bone metabolism.

Short-term effects of anastrozole treatment on insulin-like growth factor system in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients.

Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) play a fundamental role in cancer development by acting in both an endocrinal and paracrinal manner, and hormone breast cancer treatments affect the IGF system by modifying circulating growth factor levels. We evaluated total IGF-1, IGF-2, IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-1 and IGFBP-3 in the blood of 34 postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients (median age 63 years, range 41-85) treated with anastrozole, a non-steroidal structure aromatase inhibitor (NSS-AI). The plasma samples were obtained at baseline, and after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment. The IGFs were quantitated by means of sensitive radioimmunoassays (RIAs). IGF-1 significantly increased during anastrozole treatment (baseline versus 12 weeks, P=0.031), IGF-2 showed a trend towards an increase, and IGFBP-1 constantly but not significantly decreased; IGFBP-3 did not seem to be affected at all. The anastrozole-induced changes in IGFs and IGFBP-1 appeared to be different in the patients receiving a clinical benefit from those observed in non-responders. We have previously shown that letrozole (a different type of NSS-AI) modifies blood IGF-1 levels, and the results of this study of the biological effects of anastrozole on the components of the IGF system confirm our previous observations.

c-erbB 2 serum level as prognostic factor in hormonally treated advanced breast cancer patients.

To investigate whether c-erbB 2 serum levels may be predictive of clinical response, progression-free and overall survival in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer hormonally treated, 265 patients enrolled in previous clinical trials were evaluated. C-erbB 2 serum levels were assessed before the start of treatment and in a subgroup of patients also at the first response evaluation. In addition, serum CA 15.3 levels were determined. The role of c-erbB 2 was investigated by means of multiple regression models in which both c-erbB 2 and CA 15.3 values were modelled as continuous variables together with other known prognostic factors. The failure probability tended to be higher in the presence of high c-erbB 2 levels, but the trend was not statistically significant; in contrast, significant results were obtained for progression-free survival (PFS,P <0.001) and overall survival (OS, P=0.014). The within-patient c-erbB 2 variation significantly predicted PFS (P=0.006) and OS (P=0.040). It is worth noting that c-erbB 2 and CA 15.3 baseline levels were significantly correlated and that the prognostic effect of c-erbB 2 tended to disappear in the presence of high CA 15.3 levels for PFS and OS.

Tumor response and estrogen suppression in breast cancer patients treated with aromatase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for the hormonal treatment of breast cancer (BC) is based on depriving tumor cells of estrogenic stimulation. Aromatase inhibitors (Als) block the conversion of peripheral tissue androgens to estrogens with different levels of potency. In an attempt to investigate the relationship between tumor response and estrogen suppression, we reviewed the hormonal and clinical data of two previous studies with formestane (250 and 500 mg i.m. fortnightly) in advanced BC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred four BC patients were selected on the basis of the availability of records concerning their plasma estrone (El) and estradiol (E2) levels assessed at scheduled times. The degree of estrogen suppression and the best clinical response of each patient during the trials were considered. RESULTS: There was a positive and significant (P < 0.05) correlation between baseline and post-formestane E1 and E2 levels, with a decrease in the levels of both hormones irrespective of any antitumor response. In particular, the degree of plasma estrogen suppression was similar in the patients who experienced a complete remission and those with progressive disease (PD). CONCLUSIONS: The plasma estrogen suppression induced by aromatase inhibition is not the only mechanism accounting for its clinical activity. Many clinical trials have demonstrated that all AIs induce a similar antitumor response regardless of their potency, and further investigations are warranted in order to improve our understanding as to why the patients with PD also show a significant plasma estrogen suppression. It is possible that intratumoral aromatase activity may be a marker for selecting the BC patients most likely to respond to AI treatment.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Response and survival in patients with advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) remain poor. As single agents, the nucleoside analog gemcitabine, and the semisynthetic vinca alkaloid vinorelbine, have been shown to be effective in NSCLC and to have a low toxicity profile. METHODS: Fifty-four chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC Stage IIIB (any TN3M0 or T4 any NM0) or IV (any T any NM1) were enrolled in this single-institution Phase II study. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) were both administered on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to 9 courses unless disease progression or severe toxicity required their discontinuation. RESULTS: Partial tumor regression was observed in 16 patients, for an overall response rate of 30% (95% confidence interval, 18.4-46.7%) on an intent-to-treat basis. The median time to progression was 5 months (range, 3-20). The median survival was 12 months (range, 5-42+); 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 49.1% and 17%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was mild with only 11% of the patients developing Grade 3 neutropenia. None of the patients developed any Grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine is feasible on an outpatient basis. The good activity and tolerability of the regimen make it a suitable candidate for further trials, using platinum-based regimens as comparators and possibly selecting elderly and less fit patients.

New clinical trials for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors.

In oncology there is an increasing interest in neuroendocrine tumors, whose incidence is generally considered low, although in a recent analysis of 5,468 cases there was an increase in the proportion of pulmonary and gastric carcinoids and a decrease in the appendiceal carcinoids. However carcinoid tumors are indolent and their diagnosis is often difficult to carry out, so the true incidence may be higher. Surgery remains the treatment of choice and it should always be considered in patients with neuroendocrine tumors although a complete cure is difficult to obtain. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is the medical treatment for highly proliferating neuroendocrine tumors, but it has showed a modest benefit. Somatostatin analogues, octreotide and lanreotide are the standard hormonal treatment for neuroendocrine tumors. Recently, two trials on lanreotide and octreotide have been published, and it is worth noting that in each trial a long-acting formulation has been used: for lanreotide a prolonged-release formulation (PR) which allows an injection of 30 mg every 2 weeks, and for octreotide a long-acting release formulation (LAR) which allows an injection of 10, 20 or 30 mg every 28 days. The results of each trial are very promising. However, there are methodological and clinical aspects which make it difficult to carry out new trials for studying neuroendocrine tumors. The increasing number of biological markers deserve further investigations before their wide use in clinical practice.

Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double-blind trial. The Exemestane Study Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) versus megestrol acetate (MA) in postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 769 patients were randomized to EXE 25 mg/d (n = 366) or MA (n = 403) 40 mg four times daily. Tumor response, duration of tumor control, tumor-related signs and symptoms (TRSS), quality of life (QOL), survival, and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall objective response (OR) rates were higher in patients treated with EXE than in those treated with MA (15.0% v 12.4%); a similar trend was noted in patients with visceral metastases (13.5% v 10.5%). Median survival time was significantly longer with EXE (median not reached) than with MA (123.4 weeks; P =.039), as were the median duration of overall success (OR or stable disease > or = 24 weeks; 60.1 v 49.1 weeks; P =.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 v 16.6 weeks; P =.037), and time to treatment failure (16.3 v 15.7 weeks; P =.042). Compared with MA, there were similar or greater improvements in pain, TRSS, and QOL with EXE. Both drugs were well tolerated. Grade 3 or 4 weight changes were more common with MA (17.1% v 7.6%; P =.001). CONCLUSION: EXE prolongs survival time, time to tumor progression, and time to treatment failure compared with MA and offers a well-tolerated treatment option for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen.

Steroidal aromatase inhibitors in elderly patients.

The choice of treatment for elderly breast cancer patients needs particular care because the presence of physiological functional impairments can modify the drug bioavailability in an unpredictable manner. Hormonal treatment remains one of the choices and, although tamoxifen has proved to be effective in any setting, the use of selective aromatase inhibitors is arousing. Depending on their chemical structure, aromatase inhibitors are either steroidal (such as exemestane and formestane) or non-steroidal (such as letrozole, vorozole and anastrozole). Formestane has been studied in elderly patients with breast cancer and has been found to induce an overall response rate of 51% (95% CI, 35-67%). The drug suppresses estradiol (E2) levels, and changes in other hormones (FSH, LH and SHBG) are observed, but with poor clinical significance, thus confirming its selectivity and potency. Formestane has also been demonstrated to be as effective as tamoxifen. Exemestane and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors appear to be very promising drugs.

The luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin with or without the aromatase inhibitor formestane in premenopausal breast cancer: effects on bone metabolism markers.

BACKGROUND: the combination of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogue and an aromatase inhibitor (AI) induces greater oestrogen suppression than the analogue alone in premenopausal breast cancer. However, very few data on the biological effects of such a combination are currently available. AIM OF THE STUDY: the short-term effects of treatment with the LH-RH analogue triptorelin alone or in association with the AI formestane on bone metabolism were investigated in premenopausal breast cancer. Circulating levels of the bone formation markers carboxy-terminal and amino-terminal propeptides of type I procollagen (PICP and PINP) and the bone resorption marker cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP) were assessed. In addition, serum levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-3 and interleukin 6 (IL-6) were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: twenty-one patients with advanced breast cancer were randomly given triptorelin monthly alone (n=10, arm A) or in combination with formestane fortnightly (n=11, arm B). Blood samples were collected over a 3-month period. RESULTS: serum PICP and PINP levels increased significantly over time (P=0.0065 and 0.0197 in arm A and B, respectively); no change in ICTP levels was observed. A rise in IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels was seen in each treatment group, but only the increase in IGF-I was significant (P=0.0138, always). The on-treatment levels of the bone turnover markers and IGF-system components were inversely correlated with serum oestrogens. Neither treatment modalities significantly affected serum IL-6 levels over time. No difference in the behaviour of any of the assessed biomarkers was observed between patients with or without skeletal metastases. CONCLUSION: it is worth noting that complete oestrogen depletion, at least in our case series, seems to increase only osteoblastic activity markers. The observed modifications appear to be related to oestrogen depletion per se rather than the degree of oestrogen suppression or the different therapeutic regimen administered.

Exemestane improves survival in metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized study.

We compared the efficacy and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) with megestrol acetate (MA) in women with metastatic breast cancer. This phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in 769 postmenopausal women who had experienced tamoxifen failure. Treatment arms consisted of EXE 25 mg once daily (n=366) or MA 40 mg four times daily (160 mg daily; n=403). Peer-reviewed, intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated that EXE induced a trend toward higher rates of complete response (CR)+partial response (PR) (15.0% vs. 12.4%) and of CR+PR+stable disease (SD)=24 weeks (37.4% vs. 34.6%), but differences were not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences favoring EXE were seen in median duration of CR+PR+SD=24 weeks (60.1 vs. 49.1 weeks; P=0.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 vs. 16.6 weeks; P=0.037), time to treatment failure (16.3 vs. 15.7 weeks; P=0.042), and overall survival (not reached vs. 123.4 weeks; P=0.039). Both treatments were well tolerated, but MA was associated with more grade 3 or 4 weight gain (8% vs. 17%, P=0.001); the pain score was sim-ilar in both groups. There was a trend toward superiority in treatment-related signs and symptoms (TRSS) with EXE. There was greater improvement in the pain score and TRSS in patients achieving an objective response with EXE vs. MA. Quality of life improved or was similar for EXE in most domains. Exemestane offers an important new treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer.